Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[The Pixie]

Pixie, I did not bring up the intrinsic thing you did. I'm asking how, in a godless universe, anything could be intrinsically wrong. Make a rational case, not an emotional one.

That is right. I think murder is intrinsically wrong. You do not. If you want to see why, read the last paragraph.

To me, this is fundamental. Murder is wrong. End of story. I do not know how to put it any differently.

To you, murder is wrong when God says it is wrong, and right when he says it is right.

Those terrorists who fly aeroplanes into skyscrapes, they thought what they were doing was morally right, because they believed what they were doing was what God wanted. Just like the Hebrews committing genocide:

Deu 25:19 Therefore it shall come about when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance to [o]possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget.

This is the morality that you advocate, seer. Personally, I find it abhorrent.

You may not like that "emotional" case, but at its base, that is what you are doing too. Let us be honest here, seer, the point of this thread is you wanting to show the deficiencies in atheist morality.

The reality is that it has exposed the deficiencies in your own Christian morality.

And which atheists agree that murder is wrong? The followers of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin?

I have never met those people so I do not know. Atheists do not claim to have a single monolithic morality. All I have in common with the followers of Pol Pot (that you do not) is what we do not do. We do not believe in God. Why would you imagine I have any insight into their morality?

Unlike Christians. And yet plenty of Christians were slave owners only a century or so ago. Is slavery wrong under a Christian moral? It depends who you ask. They all worship the same God, they all get their morality from the same God, they are all in communion with the same God, and yet they have very different answers to a very basic moral question.

And yet the basis of your argument is that you have an objective standard for your morality. Sad really.

[seer]

That is right. I think murder is intrinsically wrong. You do not. If you want to see why, read the last paragraph.

To me, this is fundamental. Murder is wrong. End of story. I do not know how to put it any differently.

To you, murder is wrong when God says it is wrong, and right when he says it is right.

Those terrorists who fly aeroplanes into skyscrapes, they thought what they were doing was morally right, because they believed what they were doing was what God wanted. Just like the Hebrews committing genocide:

Deu 25:19 Therefore it shall come about when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance to [o]possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget.

This is the morality that you advocate, seer. Personally, I find it abhorrent.

You may not like that "emotional" case, but at its base, that is what you are doing too. Let us be honest here, seer, the point of this thread is you wanting to show the deficiencies in atheist morality.

Ok, it an assertion on your part without any rational justification. And my OP was not about pointing to deficiencies in atheist morality per se, but the logical disconnect in their reasoning.

I have never met those people so I do not know. Atheists do not claim to have a single monolithic morality. All I have in common with the followers of Pol Pot (that you do not) is what we do not do. We do not believe in God. Why would you imagine I have any insight into their morality?

You said: Atheists are not like that. Atheists believe that murder is wrong (I imagine many Christiands and other theists would agree). We do not need a higher entity to tell us it is wrong, we know it is wrong anyway.

You made a general claim that was false. So which atheists are correct - those who think like you or those atheists who have murdered millions in the name of their ideology?

Unlike Christians. And yet plenty of Christians were slave owners only a century or so ago. Is slavery wrong under a Christian moral? It depends who you ask. They all worship the same God, they all get their morality from the same God, they are all in communion with the same God, and yet they have very different answers to a very basic moral question.

And yet the basis of your argument is that you have an objective standard for your morality. Sad really.

Not relevant to my point. The question remains: why do you find perfectly natural behaviors so objectionable?

[The Pixie]

Ok, it an assertion on your part without any rational justification.

If you want to see it like that, then fine

And my OP was not about pointing to deficiencies in atheist morality per se, but the logical disconnect in their reasoning.

As long as you do not think a logical disconnect in their reasoning is a deficiencies in atheist morality then that is fine too.

As I hope I have established, this atheist morality is rather better than yours.

You said: Atheists are not like that. Atheists believe that murder is wrong (I imagine many Christiands and other theists would agree). We do not need a higher entity to tell us it is wrong, we know it is wrong anyway.

You made a general claim that was false. So which atheists are correct - those who think like you or those atheists who have murdered millions in the name of their ideology?

Okay, my bad. I did not mean all atheists, I was thinking of atheists who live in the western world, in the same countries as you and I, who for the most part live moral lives, and are capable of understanding right and wrong.

The vast majority of atheists living in Europe and America understand why murder is wrong (I would guess many Christians do too, and Muslims, etc.). We do not need a god to tell us that murder is wrong, we are able to judge these thongs for ourselves. I appreciate that you cannot.

Do you think slavery is wrong, seer? Your Bible condones it. The vast majority of atheists living in Europe and America understand why slavery is wrong. However, your morality comes from God. Given the Bible's stance on slavery, why would you think slavery is morally wrong? Or perhaps you think it is morally right, as Christians did not so long ago.

My guess is that you know you are in a moral quagmire here, and you will duck this question, but we will see.

Not relevant to my point. The question remains: why do you find perfectly natural behaviors so objectionable?

Because they are morally wrong. Being natural does not make them morally right any more than being sanctioned by God makes them morally right.

Now can you answer my question: why do you find slavery so objectionable when it is sanctioned by the Bible?

[seer]

As I hope I have established, this atheist morality is rather better than yours.

Okay, my bad. I did not mean all atheists, I was thinking of atheists who live in the western world, in the same countries as you and I, who for the most part live moral lives, and are capable of understanding right and wrong.

OK, so which group of atheists are correct?

The vast majority of atheists living in Europe and America understand why murder is wrong (I would guess many Christians do too, and Muslims, etc.). We do not need a god to tell us that murder is wrong, we are able to judge these thongs for ourselves. I appreciate that you cannot.

Do you think slavery is wrong, seer? Your Bible condones it. The vast majority of atheists living in Europe and America understand why slavery is wrong. However, your morality comes from God. Given the Bible's stance on slavery, why would you think slavery is morally wrong? Or perhaps you think it is morally right, as Christians did not so long ago.

Nope, not the point of this thread and it had been answered a number of times. If you want an in depth study go here:

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Do your own homework

Because they are morally wrong. Being natural does not make them morally right any more than being sanctioned by God makes them morally right.

But that is the point Homer - why do you, we, find perfectly natural acts immoral?

[Darth Executor]

No, it is where I require you to support your claim that most atheists happily murder unborn children.

They are the same thing.

[ChaosRain]

OK, so which group of atheists are correct?

Why is this relevant? Every individual atheist can be right or wrong about some things. We would argue that the atheists that follow reason the most are correct (I.E., murder is objectively immoral, rape is objectively immoral, etc.), thus making atheists that don't kill millions of people the moral variant. The difference being that, while an atheist can look at a situation and reason to themselves whether something is moral or immoral, a Christian would look to the Bible, and act unquestioningly (for the most part).

They are the same thing.

Are you claiming that atheists happily murder unborn children? I haven't been keeping track of your and Mr. Pixie's discussion(s), but I'm getting bad vibes from you now.

[seer]

Why is this relevant? Every individual atheist can be right or wrong about some things. We would argue that the atheists that follow reason the most are correct (I.E., murder is objectively immoral, rape is objectively immoral, etc.), thus making atheists that don't kill millions of people the moral variant. The difference being that, while an atheist can look at a situation and reason to themselves whether something is moral or immoral, a Christian would look to the Bible, and act unquestioningly (for the most part).

Let not derail this thread and try to keep on subject, which is, why do we find some perfectly natural acts so morally objectionable? But don't find those same acts morally objectionable when other animals (like chimpanzees) do the same thing.

The difference being that, while an atheist can look at a situation and reason to themselves whether something is moral or immoral.

No you can't. Present a non-arbitrary standard by which you decide these things.

[Darth Executor]

Are you claiming that atheists happily murder unborn children? I haven't been keeping track of your and Mr. Pixie's discussion(s), but I'm getting bad vibes from you now.

Absolutely. Abortion has massive, enthusiastic support from atheists.

[Darth Executor]

I wouldn't call what you presented an "argument."

Of course you wouldn't, because then you'd have to admit that not only are atheists just as happy to murder as anybody else, but that they've actually been supporting a mass murder project that dwarfs everything anybody else did from the beggining of human history.

[seer]

Of course you wouldn't, because then you'd have to admit that not only are atheists just as happy to murder as anybody else, but that they've actually been supporting a mass murder project that dwarfs everything anybody else did from the beggining of human history.

Exactly...

[ChaosRain]

Let not derail this thread and try to keep on subject, which is, why do we find some perfectly natural acts so morally objectionable? But don't find those same acts morally objectionable when other animals (like chimpanzees) do the same thing.

Because we can objectively look at some perfectly natural acts and see their negative impacts upon us or our societies. To claim that natural = moral is a naturalistic fallacy. Chimpanzee morality is not the same as human morality.

No you can't. Present a non-arbitrary standard by which you decide these things.

Objective reason. Look at an event or occurrence, and weigh the pros and cons; if it negatively affects someone or society, then it is wrong. There is good for society, and there is bad for society.

Absolutely. Abortion has massive, enthusiastic support from atheists.

That's a sweeping generalization if ever I saw one; you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing such garbage. Seriously, wise up. You're Canadian; act like it.

Atheists are not in support of abortion; they are in support of the choice of abortion. The ability to, if the situation deems it necessary. You seem to be under the false assumption that pro-choice = pro-abortion. This is simply not the case. Pro-choice is the position that allows people who do not wish to get an abortion the right to not abort, whilst not limiting people that want to or need to get an abortion from getting one.

The fetus is well within the body rights of the mother. It is not its own entity, until that umbilical cord is cut. If you're anti-choice, then I'd expect that you would put funds from your own pocket into a program that assists mothers that are denied abortions. If not, then you are a hypocrite; no better than the extremist Christians and Catholics in the Southern States.

[seer]

Because we can objectively look at some perfectly natural acts and see their negative impacts upon us or our societies. To claim that natural = moral is a naturalistic fallacy. Chimpanzee morality is not the same as human morality.

What do you mean negative effects? What the northern Chimpanzees did was very positive for their group. What the Europeans did in North American was very positive for the Europeans. What the Communists did in China was very positive for the Communists. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Objective reason. Look at an event or occurrence, and weigh the pros and cons; if it negatively affects someone or society, then it is wrong. [I]There is good for society, and there is bad for society.

Like in my examples above? What the Hutu did to the Tutsi was very successful for the Hutu - in both territory and control. So again, I will ask for a non-arbitrary standard.

[Darth Executor]

That's a sweeping generalization if ever I saw one; you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing such garbage. Seriously, wise up. You're Canadian; act like it.

Atheists are not in support of abortion; they are in support of the choice of abortion. The ability to, if the situation deems it necessary. You seem to be under the false assumption that pro-choice = pro-abortion. This is simply not the case. Pro-choice is the position that allows people who do not wish to get an abortion the right to not abort, whilst not limiting people that want to or need to get an abortion from getting one.

The fetus is well within the body rights of the mother. It is not its own entity, until that umbilical cord is cut. If you're anti-choice, then I'd expect that you would put funds from your own pocket into a program that assists mothers that are denied abortions. If not, then you are a hypocrite; no better than the extremist Christians and Catholics in the Southern States.

That's a sweeping generalization if ever I saw one; you should be ashamed of yourself for spewing such garbage. Seriously, wise up. You're Canadian; act like it.

Nazis are not in support of baking Jews. They are in support of the choice of baking jews. The abilty to, if the situation deems it necessary. You seem to be under the false assumption that pro-choice = pro-human BBQ. This is simply not the case. Pro-choice is the position that allows people who do not wish to include Jews in their dishes the right to not cook with Jews, whilst not limiting people that want to or need to add a little kosher flavor to their meal.

The Jew is well within the national rights of the Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel. They are not their own entity, until the plane lands in Israel. If you're anti-choice, then I'd expect that you would put funds from your own pocket into a program that assists Iron Chef Himmler in buying alternative ingredients. If not, then you are a hypocrite.; no better than the extremist vegans and vegetarians wandering around Eaton Center.

[ChaosRain]

What do you mean negative effects? What the northern Chimpanzees did was very positive for their group. What the Europeans did in North American was very positive for the Europeans. What the Communists did in China was very positive for the Communists. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Then they acted according to their best interests. To us, however, it would seem rather abhorrent and unnecessary. The real question here is: was their reason clouded?

Like in my examples above? What the Hutu did to the Tutsi was very successful for the Hutu - in both territory and control. So again, I will ask for a non-arbitrary standard.

Reason, as I've already stated. Repeating the same answered question because you didn't like my answer won't earn you any credit. In the case of the Tutsi versus the Hutu, natural selection seems to have had an effect. Reason doesn't always win, when it comes to humans.


@Darth Executor, You made a number of false equivalence fallacies in your response, so I will not dignify you with a response. If you wish to be anti-rights, then you're welcome to it. I will not entertain you any further, so long as you act as immaturely as you have.

[Darth Executor]

The real question here is: was their reason clouded?

The true real question is: is your reason clouded? There's no rational reason to supplicate to outgroups like we you do.

@Darth Executor, You made a number of false equivalence fallacies in your response, so I will not dignify you with a response.

Isn't this a response?

If you wish to be anti-rights, then you're welcome to it. I will not entertain you any further, so long as you act as immaturely as you have.

I'm not the one who thinks it's ok to bash a newborn baby's brains out as long as the umbilical cord wasn't cut.